3 ms·
> Hey, you started claiming two years, no it's three months. Three months is perfectly acceptable for quality peer-reviewing. For good papers from experience au
by IanCal 10y ago
> Hey, you started claiming two years, no it's three months. Three months is perfectly acceptable for quality peer-reviewing. For good papers from experience authors (who know what critic to expect) this waiting might even be lower. High-quality publishing demands this.
You're not interpreting this correctly. This is not the time for review, this is once the paper has been reviewed and accepted. The journal has agreed to publish the paper, but there is still a significant delay before anyone actually gets to read it. This is why I'm saying it doesn't take two years to review the papers. It won't have done, but it still took that long between submission and the time others could actually read it.
- kensai 10y agoThis happens because you forget there is a que, a pipeline so to speak. Papers pile up, especially for highly desirable journals that command many eyeballs. If yo do not want that, choose another journal. Most new ones can guarantee maximum time. All things considered, things get better here but still you get that fundamental step of peer-reviewing, which is the main difference between traditional journals and pre-print servers. In the latters you are essentially alone.